Status-6: Russia’s 100-megaton torpedo

[Peter1469]

Oh...you're 100,000 US troops claim was based on what someone else said? Nice spin, Bismark.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand this topic- above casual conversation. I always pointed out that what other people (Neocons and others) were claiming their end state was would require troop levels exceeding the surge. And no, we have not achieved those stated goals as of this date. ISIL is still in the fight,, although relegated to an insurgency.

You Realpolitikers always do something different than what you claim, we Neocons have to come clean it up.

The last time I asked you what you thought a realpolitik vision was, you gave me a silly response. I concluded that you are out of your depth in geopolitics.

Overt action. Directly confronting ISIS. US troops on the ground to facilitate, coordinate, and command military action against ISIS was what it took, this wasn't going to occur with your chosen covert containment, take out leadership, all this chaos makes us safer bullshiit, Peter.

That is not a Neocon strategy. Note the lack of a large invasion force and occupation. And without those things you will never achieve your stated goal of destroying ISIL and turning Iraq into a functioning democracy. And BTW, keeping Middle Eastern nations distracted with each other does make us safer. Because they they were no longer at odds with one another, the Necon dream of peace and democracy still would not be achieved in the Middle East.

The political leadership nor government of Iraq was capable at the time, the reason they're doing much better follows direct overt intervention by US military forces that you didn't call for until after November of 2015.

Because the Iraqi government was dysfunctional. We could not effect positive change when the government is tearing the Iraqi nation apart with its actions.

I hope this helps.

[Ransom]

You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand this topic- above casual conversation. I always pointed out that what other people (Neocons and others) were claiming their end state was would require troop levels exceeding the surge. And no, we have not achieved those stated goals as of this date. ISIL is still in the fight,, although relegated to an insurgency.

The last time I asked you what you thought a realpolitik vision was, you gave me a silly response. I concluded that you are out of your depth in geopolitics.


That is not a Neocon strategy. Note the lack of a large invasion force and occupation. And without those things you will never achieve your stated goal of destroying ISIL and turning Iraq into a functioning democracy. And BTW, keeping Middle Eastern nations distracted with each other does make us safer. Because they they were no longer at odds with one another, the Necon dream of peace and democracy still would not be achieved in the Middle East.



Because the Iraqi government was dysfunctional. We could not effect positive change when the government is tearing the Iraqi nation apart with its actions.

I hope this helps.

I know this helps
We withdrew from Iraq prematurely and for the wrong reasons. We ignored rising violence as early as 2012. We set false red lines and destabilized Egypt and Libya. We ignored outcomes in the Syrian Civil war, they at first weren't in our vital national interests. The violence there it turned out, wasn't making anyone any safer, in fact, was endangering the entire region, in fact, would come to endanger the entire Western World. We came late to the table. The Islamic State was permitted to entrench when it was known or involvement was inevitable and more expensive as time passed.....and we still came late to the table.

Overt. Not covert. This is critical now. Overt US military firepower was necessary in uprooting ISIS. Thy did in fact have staying power, they did in fact make alliances with the Sunni Tribal factions in Anbar regions and Mosul. They had defeated the Iraqi army, where they were no comparison to us.....it wasn't the US trying to confront the at the time. It was Iraq's government that fell. Syria's Assad when he had major powers breathing down his neck. Iran who supported militias, the Kurds, even Hezbollah and al-Qaeda a times...and they proved more than a match for these forces rolling over the Levant in months. While we sat idle. Pushing covert means to try to contain the threat.

And then on a cold evening here and even colder evening in Paris unfolded and the Neocons turned out to be the teachers after all. Cause everything I wrote there....not only is it all fact, Peter, but I had to teach all of it to you. Every line.

[Peter1469]

Iraq did not almost fall to ISIL because the US left. Iraq came to the brink because its government was corrupt and the Shia leadership purged Sunnis from the military and government. Had our 8 years of occupation of Iraq prior to 2011 worked- ISIL would never had gotten a foothold in Iraq. Fact that Neocons reject.

Perhaps our pull out, and the Iraqi humiliation at the hands of ISIL worked out for the best. The Iraqi government does seem to be more on the ball today. Sometimes you have to let your children plot their own course.

Our recent use of US forces in Iraq is dramatically different from the occupation years. We should have skipped Plan A for Plan B from the get-go after the fall of Baghdad.

The Neocons have taught us a valuable lesson. You can't bring a true democracy to a people that don't want it. Even with a massive occupation. I learned that lesson on the ground with eyes on. But now the majority of Americans who saw it on TV have learned that lesson.

I know this helps
We withdrew from Iraq prematurely and for the wrong reasons. We ignored rising violence as early as 2012. We set false red lines and destabilized Egypt and Libya. We ignored outcomes in the Syrian Civil war, they at first weren't in our vital national interests. The violence there it turned out, wasn't making anyone any safer, in fact, was endangering the entire region, in fact, would come to endanger the entire Western World. We came late to the table. The Islamic State was permitted to entrench when it was known or involvement was inevitable and more expensive as time passed.....and we still came late to the table.

Overt. Not covert. This is critical now. Overt US military firepower was necessary in uprooting ISIS. Thy did in fact have staying power, they did in fact make alliances with the Sunni Tribal factions in Anbar regions and Mosul. They had defeated the Iraqi army, where they were no comparison to us.....it wasn't the US trying to confront the at the time. It was Iraq's government that fell. Syria's Assad when he had major powers breathing down his neck. Iran who supported militias, the Kurds, even Hezbollah and al-Qaeda a times...and they proved more than a match for these forces rolling over the Levant in months. While we sat idle. Pushing covert means to try to contain the threat.

And then on a cold evening here and even colder evening in Paris unfolded and the Neocons turned out to be the teachers after all. Cause everything I wrote there....not only is it all fact, Peter, but I had to teach all of it to you. Every line.

[Ransom]

Iraq did not almost fall to ISIL because the US left. Iraq came to the brink because its government was corrupt and the Shia leadership purged Sunnis from the military and government. Had our 8 years of occupation of Iraq prior to 2011 worked- ISIL would never had gotten a foothold in Iraq. Fact that Neocons reject.

Your words games, Peter. From the ashes of the Syrian conflict, the vital national interest wouldn't have been a "foothold" in Iraq. Because ISIL didn't have a foothold in Iraq. They had overrun much of the entire Levant, occupied Iraq's 2nd largest city, and defeated the Iraq Army in doing so. They had overrun Kurd communities and if the largest ethnic population in Iraq.....Shia....got in the way, they overran them as well. They instituted a tax system, overran oil and dam facilities, that tends to bring your government and military to the brink, Peter. And it calls for US overt activity that you vehemently opposed until events in Paris. A foothold would have you agreeing with your stance, that is a sideshow, that isn't in the vital national interests of these United States. In fact taking large territories in Syria and Iraq, backed by interests even in Turkey, and transforming into a transnational terror organization....that's not a f'n foothold Peter. And it doesn't happen with US forces in occupation either.

Perhaps our pull out, and the Iraqi humiliation at the hands of ISIL worked out for the best. The Iraqi government does seem to be more on the ball today. Sometimes you have to let your children plot their own course.

Wait.....did you just say.....that our premature departure and ISIS slaughtering its' way across the Levant while you did 'exit strategy, 'ways, ends, means' discussions, 'what about mission creep' delays, worked out for "the best?"

I mean.......you......you are amusing here, Pete. This is wonderful. This is....will be given again and again. And when you claim out of context, I'll merely link to this post, this one a trophy winner.

Our recent use of US forces in Iraq is dramatically different from the occupation years. We should have skipped Plan A for Plan B from the get-go after the fall of Baghdad.

Our recent use was 1) Overt 2) Covert 3) Both?

The Neocons have taught us a valuable lesson. You can't bring a true democracy to a people that don't want it. Even with a massive occupation. I learned that lesson on the ground with eyes on. But now the majority of Americans who saw it on TV have learned that lesson.

The majority of Americans who saw it on tv? Yeah....great Bismark. The majority of Americans who saw it on tv couldn't find Iraq if I rolled a globe into their living room, Pete. Now come on. Are you ok?

[Peter1469]

Wow. You are dangerously delusional.

Your words games, Peter. From the ashes of the Syrian conflict, the vital national interest wouldn't have been a "foothold" in Iraq. Because ISIL didn't have a foothold in Iraq. They had overrun much of the entire Levant, occupied Iraq's 2nd largest city, and defeated the Iraq Army in doing so. They had overrun Kurd communities and if the largest ethnic population in Iraq.....Shia....got in the way, they overran them as well. They instituted a tax system, overran oil and dam facilities, that tends to bring your government and military to the brink, Peter. And it calls for US overt activity that you vehemently opposed until events in Paris. A foothold would have you agreeing with your stance, that is a sideshow, that isn't in the vital national interests of these United States. In fact taking large territories in Syria and Iraq, backed by interests even in Turkey, and transforming into a transnational terror organization....that's not a f'n foothold Peter. And it doesn't happen with US forces in occupation either.



Wait.....did you just say.....that our premature departure and ISIS slaughtering its' way across the Levant while you did 'exit strategy, 'ways, ends, means' discussions, 'what about mission creep' delays, worked out for "the best?"

I mean.......you......you are amusing here, Pete. This is wonderful. This is....will be given again and again. And when you claim out of context, I'll merely link to this post, this one a trophy winner.


Our recent use was 1) Overt 2) Covert 3) Both?



The majority of Americans who saw it on tv? Yeah....great Bismark. The majority of Americans who saw it on tv couldn't find Iraq if I rolled a globe into their living room, Pete. Now come on. Are you ok?

Take some college courses in geopolitics so you can join the discussion.

[Ransom]

I had asked two questions there, Peter. One of them a multiple choice question, its' answer is 3) Both. The other question was actually a quote from you, did you say the "Americans who saw it on tv?"

Yes, you did.

So the answers to those two questions are 3 and yes.

[Peter1469]

Update

Russia `Probably Developing’ Nuke-Armed Drone, DIA Says

The DIA believes this drone is being developed. I am just updating the tread.